Friday, January 16, 2009

Islam2009 and the Hydra of Learning

I try to be accurate when I refute Islam. I try to be honest with the evidence. I do my absolute best to correctly interpret the meaning of their texts.

Sadly, I do not see the same care on the Muslim side. Whenever Islam2009 responds to anything, I feel like I need to do four or five posts just to begin to address his errors. This is the pattern:

(1) I say something.

(2) Islam2009 responds to it. In his response, he makes four or five clear errors.

(3) I and others respond to the four or five errors.

(4) Islam2009 then posts an unimaginably long response, with dozens of errors.

(5) I try to respond to one or two at a time.

(6) For every error I respond to, Islam2009 replies with several more errors.

(7) Soon, there are so many errors on a single page, it would take all day and night to even begin to refute them.

For every error we refute, several more spring up. I feel like I'm fighting the Hydra of Lerna, which, according Greek myth, was almost impossible to stop, since, whenever one of its heads was cut off, two more would grow back in its place. Truly, it would take the mighty Hercules to stop Islam2009's many-headed error monster. It seems that the new Muslim methodology is to overpower us with their limitless ignorance.

But we must try, my friends. While it is impossible to respond to all of the errors of the Muslims on this blog (due to the sheer volume of their output), we can nevertheless respond to some, in hopes that Muslims will eventually recognize that their heads are filled with all kinds of false ideas. Perhaps they will then search for the truth. (We can only hope.)

Yesterday, Islam2009 made one of the most absurd claims anyone in history has ever made. He claimed that there were first century disputes over which books should be part of the New Testament. I asked Islam2009 to produce evidence to support his claim, knowing full well that there is no evidence to support his claim. My goal was for him to acknowledge that he invents things out of his own mind. Did he do this? No. Instead, he decided, once again, to completely misrepresent the New Testament, and to avoid even the most basic principles of careful reasoning. He begins:

How do we know there were disputes over different books in the 1st century?

A couple very telling verses come to mind:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.”

(Galatians 1:6-7)

Now that’s sounds like a dispute to me!

Now where is that early 1st century Gospel of the Galatians that Paul so hated, David?

I woud just LOVE to read about what they had to say.

In fact its remarkable that you even ask for proof of major 1st century disputes given that many of Pauls letters- such as that to the Galatians- are written in the very face of them.

Paul isn’t exactly writing to all these churches to say “Hey guys, your all doing great! Keep up the good work!” Is he? Its just one big apologetic effort to try and convince his fellow Christians to accept “MY GOSEPEL” as he says in 2 Tim 2:8.

How is Islam2009's response flawed? Let me count the ways.

(1) He's appealing to Galatians as evidence of first century disputes over which books would be included in the New Testament. With the possible exceptions of James, 1 Thessalonians, and the Markan Passion Narrative, none of the books of the New Testament had been written. Moreover, we have no evidence that anyone in this period was even thinking of putting together a Christian canon. Thus, it's difficult to understand how anything at the time of Galatians could be considered a dispute over canonical books.

(2) The false "gospel" that Paul referred to had nothing to do with a book. This is a misunderstanding Muslims get from Muhammad (who obviously had no clue what the word "gospel" meant). The word "gospel" (euangelion), in Greek, simply means "good news." It referred to the proclamation of a great victory or to the rise of a new emperor. Thus, when a new Caesar would rise to power, a herald would go out proclaiming the "good news." Muslims, however, base their understanding of "gospel" on Muhammad's misunderstanding. According to Muhammad, the "gospel" of Jesus was a book. This, as everyone knows, is false. The Gospels in the New Testament were called "Gospels" because they contained "the Gospel," i.e. the message about Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. Hence, the dispute in Galatians has nothing to do with a dispute over books (let alone a dispute over which books should be considered canonical).

(3) Islam2009 says he wishes that he could read about this other Gospel. Well, he can--in Galatians (where Paul responds to this false gospel) and in the book of Acts (where the early church leaders respond to this false gospel). What was this false gospel? According to Islam2009, it's a complete mystery. But it isn't. In the early church, there was a disagreement over how much of the Old Testament Law the gentile believers had to follow. Some in the Christian community believed that gentile believers had to go through the whole process of becoming Jews, e.g. circumcision, numerous eating regulations, and so on. Paul (and all of Jesus' apostles) rejected this view. So do we have any evidence here of a dispute over canonical books? None whatsoever. All we have is a Muslim misunderstanding based on Muhammad's ignorance of basic facts of history (which, by the way, is exactly what we would expect from a seventh century false prophet).

(4) Would anyone like to see a bit of deception on Islam2009's part? Watch how sly he is! In his comments, he originally said that there were first century disputes about books. I asked him to produce evidence of disputes over which books were authoritative. Now he says, "In fact its remarkable that you even ask for proof of major 1st century disputes given that many of Pauls letters- such as that to the Galatians- are written in the very face of them." Here Islam2009 deceptively shifts the discussion from disputes over books to disputes of any kind. True, Paul's letters were written about disputes. But these disputes had nothing to do with books or canonical issues. Have Muslims no shame? I challenged Islam2009 to give me an apple; he tossed me an orange and said, "There's your apple!"

(5) Islam2009 attacks Paul because Paul referred to his message as "my Gospel." Again, Islam2009 is looking at Christianity through the eyes of Muhammad (who, once again, had no clue what he was talking about). "My Gospel" doesn't mean "my book." Paul never wrote a biography of Jesus. "My Gospel" simply means "the Good News that I preach," "the proclamation I bring," etc. Only a Muslim who is absolutely desperate to attack Paul would ever see anything sinister in Paul's reference.

Not content with these errors, Islam2009 continues:

And what about this:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,(Luke 1:1-3)

Now where are those "many" 1st century "accounts" that Luke spoke of and used, and do they all agree with your Gospel? How do you know?

One of them is almost certainly Mark’s Gospel. What about the others?

Many NT scholars say Q, that Mathew also used, which doesn’t mention the Crucifixion or resurrection.

Regardless of whether you believe in Q David, where are these ‘many’ pre-Lukan accounts and please sure me how you know they all agree with your ‘gospel’?

Let's look at some of the many flaws in Islam2009's response.

(1) As evidence that there were first century disputes over books, Islam2009 points to Luke's comment that many had written about the life of Jesus. But is there anything in this passage about a dispute? Not a word! Luke states that many people had written about Jesus; he gives no indication that these books were wrong, or that they contained some different gospel in which Jesus didn't die, rise from the dead, or claim to be divine. So we still have no evidence of a dispute over books. It's simply a matter of fact that most books of antiquity didn't survive, because papyrus didn't last long. (For example, we have roughly one-fifth of Aristotle's writings.) Books would only survive if people were constantly copying them. Interestingly, this supports the reliability of the New Testament books. The early Christian church would have most frequently copied the books that they believed were most authoritative, or which had the strongest connection to Jesus' apostles. Which books survived through constant copying? The four Gospels!

(2) Since Islam2009 really seems to think it's a problem that Christians once had books that no longer exist, I simply have to point out his inconsistency. Muslims during and before the time of Ibn Ishaq wrote biographies about Muhammad. For instance, Urwa Ibn Az-Zubayr wrote his "Tract of Seerah." Where are these books? Should we conclude, since we do not have them, that Muslims deliberately destroyed them in an effort to cover up their disputes? We would, of course, have some reason to believe this, since we know that Muslims would not hesitate to burn evidence to cover up disputes. Nevertheless, it would never occur to me to say that, since Muslims didn't preserve all of their books, this must be due to disputes over the authenticity of the books. This would be absurd, and yet it's exactly the sort of reasoning Muslims apply to Christianity!

(3) While we're on this issue, notice that Muslims weren't able to preserve a single biography of Muhammad from the first century, while Christians were able to preserve four. And yet Islam2009 attacks us for not having more, despite the fact that his fellow Muslims couldn't preserve a single one! Christians were being persecuted and killed, and yet they managed to preserve a number of writings. Muslims had a huge kingdom, and yet they preserved practically nothing. If our case for Jesus is weak because we only have four first century biographies (along with numerous other first century texts), how much weaker is the case for Muhammad, which can't produce a single first century biographical source! Islam2009's ability to be inconsistent knows no bounds!

(4) This one is hilarious. Islam2009 criticizes us based on the fact that Q didn't contain reports of Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection. But what was Q? If it was a document at all, it was a collection of Jesus' wise sayings! Would a collection of Jesus' wise sayings contain reports of his death and resurrection? Not at all! This would be similar to me saying, "Hey! There are all kinds of things in Sahih al-Bukhari that aren't in the Qur'an!" Well, there would be, wouldn't there, since they're two completely different types of literature? And yet this is somehow a problem for us.

Ah well. We've only begun to touch Islam2009's errors, but we've discussed some of the basic flaws in fact and logic. (Notice how long it takes to respond to a very short passage written by Islam2009.) We'll see how he responds. If I have time and he doesn't heap up several dozen more errors, I'll go through his absurd "refutation" of my last post, where he made even more mistakes than he made here. And so the battle will continue: Me trying to spread the facts using valid logic, and Islam2009 trying to overpower everyone with his endless supply of errors.

Just to review, Islam2009 claimed that there was a first century dispute over the books of the New Testament. I asked him to provide evidence for his obviously false claim. What was his response? (1) Paul records a dispute in Galatians (nothing to do with a dispute over books), and (2) not all first century books about Jesus survived (not a shred of evidence for a dispute). At this point, a man of integrity would apologize for spreading falsehood and wrongly criticizing Christianity. Is this what Islam2009 will do? I suppose that anything is possible. But given the fact that he called Nabeel a liar when Nabeel said something completely true, then admitted that Nabeel was right and yet refused to apologize, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Indeed, based on what I know about Islam2009 right now, I fully expect him to offer us a long series of comments, full of additional errors, misrepresentations, distorted passages, and faulty logic, in yet a further effort to wear us out.

40 comments:

Islam2000 makes many false assertions and distortions of the text. Earlier he said something about Mark being a forgery. He made it sound like the whole gospel is false and thus we can't trust anything.

That is not how you do history. First, up to 16:8 is in all of the earliest full manuscripts of mark, sineaticus, vaticanus etc.. and before. It is only the last few verses after Mark 16:8. Plus we still have crucifixion, empty tomb and resurrection in their.

Moreover you can't take that and say everything is embelleshement. As Bart Ehrman said, "you have to do the hard historical work." Islam2009 then asked how do we know that Jesus words won't pass if we don't even know what he said. Think about it. We aren't talking about Jesus' words being taken away here. We are talking about margin scribe errors adding something in a manuscript by mistake. Jesus' words are thus not effected at all in this proccess. It is not redaction. Thus Jesus was rigt. His words are all over the world in every country. Islam is not

The problem with islam2009 is you have to dig yourself through 50 percent of his reply first, which really only consists of personal insults. When you finally get to the issue the guy has lost his entire respect and you hardly bother to read more.

If you read through his posts it mainly consits of repetition, change of topics (consistently) to run away from or evade the actual topic.

Basically he writes his posts long and detailed with the matters mentioned about in away that those who wish to respond will have to spend an entire day to figure out what is going on.

Its debate tactic not academia.

But I was thinking how about Wood or someone else challenge islam2009 for a public debate; I mean since he claims to have debunked anybody, he must be the tuffest debator islam has to offer.

So islam2009 how about learning from Nazam or Sami, they represent islam in a far more respective matter.

David Wood: “(3) Islam2009 says he wishes that he could read about this other Gospel. Well, he can--in Galatians (where Paul responds to this false gospel) and in the book of Acts (where the early church leaders respond to this false gospel). What was this false gospel? According to Islam2009, it's a complete mystery. But it isn't. In the early church, there was a disagreement over how much of the Old Testament Law the gentile believers had to follow. Some in the Christian community believed that gentile believers had to go through the whole process of becoming Jews, e.g. circumcision, numerous eating regulations, and so on. Paul (and all of Jesus' apostles) rejected this view. So do we have any evidence here of a dispute over canonical books? None whatsoever. All we have is a Muslim misunderstanding based on Muhammad's ignorance of basic facts of history (which, by the way, is exactly what we would expect from a seventh century false prophet).”

Sorry David, but I will have to take issue about this point. Although your overall statement is true, the details are not. The disciples did not teach that Gentiles didn’t have to observe the Torah laws. The dispute was that gentiles could only be saved when they were circumcised and observed Torah. This is nonsensical, since this would mean that we would be saved through faith and works. But we are saved by faith alone, NOT works. Every time Paul is seemingly repudiating Torah, look at the context. He is talking in terms of salvation. Torah observance is good, but it is not significant when it comes to obtaining salvation. It is only the Messiah that saves. If anything, Paul welcomes gentiles to observe the Torah: Col 2:16-17; Rom 8:1-8, 1 Cor 7:19. The gentiles, however, are given minimal requirements to be part of the Congregation of the Messiah, as we see in Acts 15.

I’m very occupied with other things right now, which I feel that I have to finish first, but after that I will take all the verses from the New Testament that people use to show that Torah is not to be observed and seek to demonstrate the (in my eyes) correct understanding of those passages, how they are to be understood in light of Yeshua’s words in Mat 5 and 7 and to the words of the prophets in the Tenach, when they speak of the Messianic Age.

Greetings!Hogan said:**But I was thinking how about Wood or someone else challenge islam2009 for a public debate;**

Why would someone who in your opinion has nothing to offer but mere insults and confusion needs challenging for a public debate? Does such a person deserve the honour of public debate:) Yours, and your friends reaction(s) speaks millions.

Why could you not show some integrity by admitting that he's been tough here against your accusations against the Qur'an, and has successfully refuted them? You and your friends here are, for obvious reasons, not pleased with the outcome of the debate here- leaving yourselves contemplating how to save yourselves from the mess you are now in with regards the Qur'an.

It's been fun and educational watching this debate as it unfolded and reached its climax (or never will, so says David) in such a short while.

Let me make a prophecy which is likely to come true: There will be another different thread/Post by David on the same topic.

Yahya said: "David, David, David, here was me thinking you have major issues with the guy's methodology and arguments, yet you choose to challenge him to a debate? ....ok!"

Well, I have major issues with your methodology and arguments, and with Sami's, and with Bassam's, and with Jalal's, and with Shabir's, and with every other Muslim's. But if someone wants to see a debate, I can't think of many situations where I'd refuse.

You're acting as if Islam2009 is uniquely bad in his argumentation. He isn't. He's doing what most Muslims do when they argue against Christianity.

Blessings brother. You have more patience than I do! It is amazing for me to watch Muslims blindly grabbing every kind of liberal argument out there no matter how much the underlying worldview would refute their own! The inconsistency is incredible, it truly is.

I just wanted to comment on this blog entry as I am getting ready to pack up my final items before heading for Florida and the debate next Wednesday evening with Bart Ehrman. I trust I will have the prayers of God's people!

By the way... according to the Lc.1,1-3 false statements that Islam2009 presented, the Greek word “epecheiresan” does not mean only “undertake”, but “try”… One can always suppose no one managed to do any significant work… all Islam2009 about this passage falls immediately… Well… but I’m sure he knows that, isn’t that true?

By the way… Yahya… why your concern about a public debate between Islam2009 and Professor Wood? Are you afraid that we realize that he isn’t a single person, but the result of a group of muslims apologists? Are you afraid that when we realize who he is all his public reputation will fall apart due to his total intellectual untruth that he has been posting in this blog? Don’t worry about that… nothing of that will happen… you’re sure about that…

Doctor Wood said: «This one is hilarious. Islam2009 criticizes us based on the fact that Q didn't contain reports of Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection. But what was Q? If it was a document at all, it was a collection of Jesus' wise sayings! Would a collection of Jesus' wise sayings contain reports of his death and resurrection? Not at all!»

i) Use one argumente agaisnt christianity and refusing to use that samme argument whene dealling with muslim topics;

j) Lack of habilities to do a schoolar reserch and/or debate;

k) Imitation of Muhammad's words and deads... full of deception (the hydra phenomenom is an example...); murder (in this case of the truth and so on...); hornity (I beet that they gette aroused when writting all the lies and misrepresentations they presente...); intimidation (don't you dare to start a new thread!!!!...)... etc... etc...

l) Total lack off knowledge about christianity;

m) Incapacity to be coherent;

n) Love to follow the "dark side" of the human heart... precisely the one that, according, to their pseudo-Holie Book inventted by Muhammad/Uthman, makes one to became djins...

o) Misrepresentation of scientific methods of investigation;......

Hilarious? No Professor Wood... disgusting and appalieng... It's sad to see at which point an human beeing is capable off going just to express a falsity...

James I disagree with you. I believe the argument David dissected here is much worse than what we get from liberals.

Good luck for your debate with Ehrman. I'm sure you are going to do a great job. But I would recommend you to include responses to some of his favorite variants (for example the "angry or compassionate" argument).

All I was saying was, islam2009 claimed that Wood was running away and hiding. Well I am just curious, if Wood challenges islam2009 it will certainly reveal who is scared or not? Wood has already challenged islam2009 for a public debate now islam2009 (if that is his real name) will have to come out of the cave or he is not worth our time. Obviously with the bold wording, insult and forceful attitude of islam2009 that is nothing but an acceptable solution.

Why could you not show some integrity by admitting that he's been tough here against your accusations against the Qur'an, and has successfully refuted them? You and your friends here are, for obvious reasons, not pleased with the outcome of the debate here- leaving yourselves contemplating how to save yourselves from the mess you are now in with regards the Qur'an.

Elijah wrote:

Responded to what Victor? islam2009 simply brought a ton of other arguments into the debate to confuse the opponent rather than staying on topic, that is not refuting, that is using dirty tactics. When you do that you are scared of loosing face.

(2) Islam2009 responds to it. In his response, he makes four or five clear errors.

(3) I and others respond to the four or five errors.

(4) Islam2009 then posts an unimaginably long response, with dozens of errors.

(5) I try to respond to one or two at a time.

(6) For every error I respond to, Islam2009 replies with several more errors.

(7) Soon, there are so many errors on a single page, it would take all day and night to even begin to refute them.

Thanks very much David for taking the time to formulate this. This is the pattern that I encounter as well. I pray that you are blessed with the patience to deal with this Muslim antiques. This is what I have wanted to formulate so far but I don't have the time yet. I post the part I quoted above together with its Indonesian translation here: http://jesusalone.multiply.com/journal/item/240/Cara_Kebanyakan_Muslim_BerdebatBerdiskusi

I encounter the same thing in discussions with most Muslims in Indonesia. So far there is only 1 Muslim I know that tries to be honest. My engage with them can be viewed here: http://suakahati.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/pengujian-terhadap-ayat-ayat-tuhan-islam-kristen/#comment-9605. Unfortunately, they are in Indonesian. Just in case some of you can read Indonesian please have a look and compare with how the Muslims behave here!

Alforreca said: "By the way… Yahya… why your concern about a public debate between Islam2009 and Professor Wood? Are you afraid that we realize that he isn’t a single person, but the result of a group of muslims apologists?"

I know who Islam2009 is. He's a single person (and not Yahya or Sami).

Responded to what Victor? islam2009 simply brought a ton of other arguments into the debate to confuse the opponent rather than staying on topic, that is not refuting, that is using dirty tactics. When you do that you are scared of loosing face.**

Responded to what?? I was specifically highlighting the refutations made to the accusations against the Qur'an (as I have indicated clearly in my post). You have to admit from the posts of Jeeijoe and Islam2009 alone on the subject of Qur'an,(in various changing threads on this blog) little more needs to be said. The refutations speak for themselves.

To bring the NT textual transmission history is not much off the topic- it is often necessary to illustrate the subject at hand by way of comparison which helps to understand it better. This form of comparison is used widely.

**Victor- Did you not read a single word of David's post? It is a response to Islam2009, so how can you accuse him of not responding?**

Nabeel, Obviously you have become confused running from thread to thread to catch up to posters' responses. Here, in this thread, I haven't accused David of anything. I was simply pointing out to Elijah about a nerve-hitting reaction- a proposal for a public debate, and what possibly may have led to that.

In another thread, ("The Bible, the Qur'an, and the Impact of Textual Change")I asked David to be smart enough to answer the refutations made of his thesis. And what is the thesis on? In a nutshell, the Qur'an and its transmission/preservation/alleged corruption. Has he (and friends)been able to defend that yet in light of the Muslim responses on this blog, in the various threads he is opening up one after the other on the same subject? How has his post on this thread has just done that? Please try to defend the thesis you concoct instead of shouting down an individual.

** How about you be an example of what you're asking for. Respond to David's post instead of simply posting that he doesn't respond. I'm looking forward to it.**

In my brief response to David on the thread "The Bible, the Qur'an, and the Impact of Textual Change", wasn't I just doing that, Nabeel?

BTW, I'm looking forward to see what your understanding really is about surah Tariq +/- medical understanding of the related subject, as you indicate in one of your previous posts.

We haven’t exactly been agreeing with each other, so I guess that’s the ‘debate’ bit covered.

And, judging by all the comments from other users here, your blog seems to be pretty ‘public’ to me.

So bizarrely enough David, it seems that we ARE having a ‘public debate’- and have been doing so for the last week!! Isn’t that funny?!

I must say, It really feels like a struck a nerve here..

I mean here you are, supposedly one of the best Evangelical apologists in the Christian world with his own “answering-Muslims” blog, and yet you are completely unable to respond to my simple arguments in response to a topic that was started on your blog, to the point where you have now fled to your FIFTH thread which isn’t even on the same topic!

Why do you make me chase you round your own blog?

Why not just admit you are wrong?

I have noting personal against you David, or any Evangelical here, so im not trying to humiliate YOU, just your agruments.

What’s worse is that not only have you been completely dumb-struck on my rebuttal of your Quran arguments, but you have now COMPLETELY IGNORED my questions on the Bible’ textual integrity too and rather diverted the issue to “1st century canon”!

How desperate can you get?

Where is my response to this?:

Can this scripture be contradicted or ‘broken’, David?:

“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

(Mark 16:17-18)

Yes or no?

Where is my response to this?:

<< Jesus (as god) said that this will come to pass:

So that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

(Revelations 13:17-18)

Now will those words of Jesus come to pass?

Will the number of the beast really be 666, just as Jesus said? Depends whether he said that or not!

Most MSS say 666, but your earliest manuscript of this verse says 616.

Now if the number of the beast turns out to be 616, have Jesus words come to pass or not, David?I must say, you’re the first Christian I’ve encountered who doesn’t want to talk about ‘Bible prophesies’! >>

Isn’t that meant to be one of the key ‘proofs’ of Evangelical apologists?

And Where is my response to this?:

<< In fact don’t you also believe that previous scriptures can perish?

If not, then can you please show me where this verse that Jesus quotes in the OT “scripture” is:

“Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘streams of living water will flow from within him’.”

(John 7:38) >>

In the public debate we are currently having, I am giving you the chance to read my arguments carefully, think about them for as long as you want, research them as hard as you want, and then get back to me in your own time.

Now if you were really such a good ‘debater’, AND if Christianity were so true, you should (in theory) be able to destroy my arguments to the point where you wouldn’t need to challenge me to a verbal, Hollywood-style, set-time, restrictive, stop-watch ‘debate’.

So why do that?

My theory is that because it’s so evident that your arguments have ZERO SUBSTANCE, you are instead hoping to “defeat” me with all the slick, verbal debating tricks that you have no doubt amassed in your global debating experience.

Sorry David, but rather than waste my time with all that I’d rather continue our public debate on your own blog, from my own home where I can demolish your propaganda, watch TV and chew gum all at the same time.

Now since its all you could muster, I shall address your ‘canon’ smoke-screen away from the original topic…

You wrote:

<< The false "gospel" that Paul referred to had nothing to do with a book. This is a misunderstanding Muslims get from Muhammad (who obviously had no clue what the word "gospel" meant). The word "gospel" (euangelion), in Greek, simply means "good news." >>

So what you’re saying is that it’s ok for Christians in the very 1st century to have entirely different Gospels.. As long as they didn’t write them down in a book?

LOL!

David please.

If you’re going to radically change the subject of the original topic to disguise your ignorance, at least make it worth it by saying something intelligent.

A gospel can be oral OR written. You have four of them WRITTEN in your NT, remember?

Now you seriously want me to believe that a whole community of early Christians in Galatia didn’t have a single book about Jesus expressing there beliefs about him?

You even admit that Luke himself tells of MANY first century accounts about him, so is it really THAT hard for you to envisage one in Galatia or elsewhere?

<< Islam2009 says he wishes that he could read about this other Gospel. Well, he can--in Galatians (where Paul responds to this false gospel) and in the book of Acts (where the early church leaders respond to this false gospel). >>

No I can’t, and neither can you.

What we have in Paul’s letters is ONE SIDE of a debate.

Where can I read what the other side had to say?

Where are the letters that the Galatians and the Corinthians etc, wrote back to Paul in response to his arguments?

What did Paul do with them? Did he burn them? ;-)

How do I know that their letter back to him didn’t completely wipe the floor with all Paul’s arguments, point by point?

It’s a bit like me printing off only the posts that ive written to you in our debate, putting them into a book, and then giving them to Muslims and saying “Look at how I demolished David Wood in a debate!” Is that fair?

Why have only the letters of Paul made it in to the NT?

Why didn’t the letters that the Galatians wrote back (or wrote first) make in to the NT too, so that we can all fairly decide who has got the better argument for their respective ‘Gospel’?

That in itself is a dispute in NT “BOOKS”!

You wrote:

<< Moreover, we have no evidence that anyone in this period was even thinking of putting together a Christian canon. >>

Read your New Testament. According to Christianity Peter wrote a letter to Christians in the mid first century (just a few years after Galatians) where he said this:

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

(2 Peter 3:15-16)

Clearly Paul’s letter*S* were regarded collectively as ‘scripture’ and thus as a canon.

Now did all Christians in the 1st century accept that canon, David?

Did the Galatians accept it?

Did the Corinthians?

Doesn’t look like it!

So THERE’S your book dispute over 1st century canon.

On Luke, I merely asked you how you know all these MANY accounts of him all agreed.

You offered nothing accept to say “Luke didn’t say they disagree”, which is yet another ridiculous argument especially since you admit above there WERE disputes about the gospel of Jesus- such as in Galatians, Corinth etc.

And when Luke “investigated” Jesus’ genealogy, why did he end up contradicting Mathews?

There’s another bonus ‘book disagreement’ for you right there.

Now David, since this is a Public Debate and there are many Christians and Muslims reading this, I hereby CHALLENGE you to return to the original topic and address my points.

Best Regards David.

P.s. By the way, what happened to this:

<< And by the way, since we are so into “show-and-tell” and about the veracity of our respective claims, can you substantiate this earlier statement of yours for me please:

“How is it possible that neither of our Muslim friends are familiar with the fact that Arthur Jeffery translated the entire text of the Kitab al-Masahif all the way back in 1933, and that the entire text is available online in English translation” >>

Responded to what?? I was specifically highlighting the refutations made to the accusations against the Qur'an (as I have indicated clearly in my post). You have to admit from the posts of Jeeijoe and Islam2009 alone on the subject of Qur'an,(in various changing threads on this blog) little more needs to be said. The refutations speak for themselves.

Elijah replies:

Go through his posts again, half of each reply posted by 2009 is utter peronal attacks and attempts to intimidate his opponent. Very little has been accomplished to refute but rather to the confuse the opponent with other issues. So the refutations do not speak for themselves.

Victor wrote:

To bring the NT textual transmission history is not much off the topic- it is often necessary to illustrate the subject at hand by way of comparison which helps to understand it better. This form of comparison is used widely.

Elijah replies:

So let me get this straight, we cannot deal with criticism of the Qur'an without including criticism on the Bible, are you not simply confirming my point that such a tactic indicates fear to deal with the specific topic.

If I am wrong are you then suggesting that whenever you Muslim bring up an attack on the Bible, lets say science in the Bible, it is perfect logical for me to turn the question around and throw 15 scientific errors in the Qur'an in your face.

of course then you will struggle to answer all the questions, and I will give you a silly answer to the one scientific you brought up, as a third matter I will mix in a whole of lot of accusation and personal insults to confuse you and intimidate you. Fourthly I will write long, very long posts which will take many hours to reply.

And then finally I will point out that I have presented a very good refutation. While actually all I did was to confuse matters and fail to stay focused.

No I don't think he effectively accomplished to refute anything at all.

I’ll just a list of its incredible Bible ignorance (ignoring his bullying attitudes…) with some very simple answers:

# 1: «COMPLETELY IGNORED my questions on the Bible’ textual integrity too and rather diverted the issue to “1st century canon”»…

the Bible’s textual integrity has everything to do with 1st century canon…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would lose all your credibility…;

# 2: «And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover»…

This has never passed… don’t you understand that the author of these words is making a theological statement saying that according to Jesus teachings everyone who has faith will be able to defeat evil (he’s not referring to this literal actions… he is speaking of “signs” – semeia… – which by the way, are precisely that “signs”, realities that points to other more important reality)…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would lose all your faithful disciples…;

# 3: «So that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666»…

But even if it was true that the earliest manuscript of this verse says 616 and not 666, the theological message is not even touched… what Jesus said to the author of the Book of the Revelation was that Caesar-Nero (666 in Hebrew letters… don’t forget that its author was clearly an Hebrew speaking person…) or Caesar-god – clearly Nero also… – (616 in Greek letters…) was the antichrist for that time…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that Muhammad can also be the antichrist to anytime…; # 4: «In fact don’t you also believe that previous scriptures can perish? please show me where this verse that Jesus quotes in the OT “scripture” is: “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘streams of living water will flow from within him’.”»

Jesus words refer to – he graphé –… he’s referring to the Targum (translation to Aramaic of the Hebrew bible… ) of Psalm 78:16… even this verse it English bibles, referring to Ex 17:1-7 reads: « he brought forth streams from a rock, made waters flow down in torrents»… in Mk 15:46 one reads that the body of Jesus was placed in a «tomb which had been hewn out of the rock» and it was from that rock that the risen Jesus came, giving the water of life to all who believe in him, not forgetting that YHWH is clearly the rock to his faithful…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that Jesus is God…;

# 5: «So what you’re saying is that it’s ok for Christians in the very 1st century to have entirely different Gospels»…

Paul is referring to false-teachings that were circulating about Jesus as we still can deduct from the true teachings of the NT… how can we believe that these ones are the true ones and not the priors? Because when people got to know the true message of Jesus they chose all along different communities across the all Mediterranean basin (the NT teachings were not imposed by force to anyone as clearly happened with Uthman revision/fabrication of the Qur’an…) the one we now consider the true message of Christ… and this from different independent sources that eliminate any supposed fabrication…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that Uthman corrupted the Qur’an…;

# 6: «A gospel can be oral OR written. You have four of them WRITTEN in your NT, remember»…

No we Christians have one Gospel, one “good news”: the message of Jesus… the same that was written in all the NT books (not only in the for books that are, by a simple Metonymy, called “gospels” by antonomasia), and any other true Christian books until today…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that you’re complete argumentation lacks any solid ground…;

# 6: « Now you seriously want me to believe that a whole community of early Christians in Galatia didn’t have a single book about Jesus expressing there beliefs about him?»…

What is the problem with this? Before all the Christian communities were founded they didn’t have any Christian book of whatsoever… and only many decades after of the first Christian communities were founded appeared the first texts… precisely when the eye-witness of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus realised that they had to write their experiences… Even in my country before many Christian communities had Christian books, we were Christians due to the oral tradition that missionaries transmitted… and surprise (to muslims like you): when we got books, not surprisingly because we Christians love the truth, we realized that their teachings were perfect…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that you’re are totally incapable of even recognise the true if it’s in front of your eyes…;

# 7: « Now you seriously want me to believe that a whole community of early Christians in Galatia didn’t have a single book about Jesus expressing there beliefs about him? Where are the letters that the Galatians and the Corinthians etc, wrote back to Paul in response to his arguments? What did Paul do with them? Did he burn them? ;-) How do I know that their letter back to him didn’t completely wipe the floor with all Paul’s arguments, point by point?»…

If those letters were never adopted by the early church, being it, has was promised by God, always assisted by the Holy Spirit of Jesus (the Ummah was never promised to be assited by Allah…), it’s because they were not intended by Him to by part of the NT… so there’s no clear point to ask if they had any different teachings (its possible, as anything in the world, but not, by any means credible, because if they were different they would have been also different from all the other NT texts…)… which, by the way, is an assertion that is only one step away from writing science-fiction… how can we trust that Muhammad wrote every single word that Allah supposedly told him? How can we trust in a person who clearly suffered from psychological inconsistency? ;-)

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that you couldn’t trust neither in Muhammad (a pathological liar and schizophrenic – not in a psychological sense – nor in Uthman who clearly destroyed the versions of the Qur’an that didn’t supported his personal narcissist intentions

# 8: «Why didn’t the letters that the Galatians wrote back (or wrote first) make in to the NT too, so that we can all fairly decide who has got the better argument for their respective ‘Gospel’? Why have only the letters of Paul made it in to the NT? »

Before repeating what I just said, I’ll say that if that was, by a remote chance, the case, everyone would have known, because they would have written letter to everywhere to complain that attitude… they did not made such thing! We have intra and extra-canonical evidences of that… just you muslims have that Uthman corrupted the Qur’ans he didn’t like

Now… let me repeat what I wrote: If those letters were never adopted by the early church, being it, has was promised by God, always assisted by the Holy Spirit of Jesus (the Ummah was never promised to be assited by Allah…), it’s because they were not intended by Him to by part of the NT… so there’s no clear point to ask if they had any different teachings (its possible, as anything in the world, but not, by any means credible, because if they were different they would have been also different from all the other NT texts…)… which, by the way, is an assertion that is only one step away from writing science-fiction… how can we trust that Muhammad wrote every single word that Allah supposedly told him? How can we trust in a person who clearly suffered from psychological inconsistency? ;-)

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that you couldn’t trust neither in Muhammad (a pathological liar and schizophrenic – not in a psychological sense – nor in Uthman who clearly destroyed the versions of the Qur’an that didn’t supported his personal narcissist intentions

# 9: «Clearly Paul’s letter*S* were regarded collectively as ‘scripture’ and thus as a canon…» Who says so? You Islam2009 in an amazing effort to start argumentation with a false statement…

They were considered as important writings – grapha –, not yet as Scripture like the OT or like the NT as we understand it today – the author speaking of “other texts” (grapha) may simply be speaking of other (OT or non biblical – remember that Athenagoras said that the fools distorted the texts “grapha”…) texts – and not, by any means, yet as a canon… they were the “paulinus corpus”, nothing more, nothing less (at that stage, which you consider “the mid first century”… )…

so there’s no need to say anything about your following words: «Did the Galatians accept it? Did the Corinthians? Doesn’t look like it! So THERE’S your book dispute over 1st century canon»… but then… continuing the deconstruction of your ignorance: who says so? That only works if one establishes that Paul’s letters were scripture and other people were distorting it… but that is not, clearly the case…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that you’re not only ignorant but as well trying to lie… but then: why do you fear that? It’s a typical muslim attitude since Muhammad…

# 10: «On Luke, I merely asked you how you know all these MANY accounts of him all agreed»…

agreed in what? In Jesus eyes? In Jesus height? In Jesus number of teethes? In the NT core message? The last one can’t be doubted since when Luke wrote there were already circulating other texts, and even more oral traditions that emerged in other NT texts written in communities founded by different apostles and disciples of Jesus that never knew the other ones (and about this we also have historical evidence… as you know…) describing the prior (the other one’s are not relevant… but even in that you can’t be sure…)…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that you should also admit that you don’t know (as it’s historically proven that Uthman destroyed the Qur’ans that didn’t support his desires…) if you have the more trustworthy Qur’an… maybe this one said that Isa was God… ;-)

# 11: And when Luke “investigated” Jesus’ genealogy, why did he end up contradicting Mathews? …

This is the most appalling testimony of ignorance: when writing one’s genealogy following one of it’s many ramifications (and I’m ignoring the theological intentions of both genealogies…) there will always be differences… an still have the same intersection points…

but I know you know this far better than you intend to admit…

but, then, you would have to admit that you’re not only ignorant but as well trying to lie… but then: why do you fear that? It’s a typical muslim attitude since Muhammad…

We haven’t exactly been agreeing with each other, so I guess that’s the ‘debate’ bit covered.

And, judging by all the comments from other users here, your blog seems to be pretty ‘public’ to me."

Why is it that everyone else but you, Islam2009, knows EXACTLY what David was suggesting? Quite obviously he meant a moderated debate, not a bunch of thread posts where one of you is using a pseudonym. Lol. The lengths that some people will go to in order to contort the meanings of words really is fascinating.

"I mean here you are, supposedly one of the best Evangelical apologists in the Christian world with his own “answering-Muslims” blog, and yet you are completely unable to respond to my simple arguments in response to a topic that was started on your blog, to the point where you have now fled to your FIFTH thread which isn’t even on the same topic!

Why do you make me chase you round your own blog?

Why not just admit you are wrong?'

Islam2009, with all this apparent "confidence" in your position and your arguments you would think you would be anxious to engage in a real moderated debate with David. Hmmm...strange that you aren't grabbing the opportunity. I guess you would rather post bravado, bombast, and self-serving comments here instead. You really should tone down your overblown language in light of the fact that you are unwilling to accept a simple debate challenge.

If posting on blog comments is the type of public debate David challenged you too then.....

...it would seem that I am actually one of the foremost "debaters" in the continental United States, mashalah (and all this time I didn't even know it!!). Yesterday, I argued over the price of some ice-cream at the grocery store. What a successful debate that was :-)

It's possible that Islam2009 has no public debating experience or is a really bad speaker, if so then why should he debate publicly?

On the contrary, the best kind of debating are the textual ones where each person has enough time to provide his answer and references and the person reading them could analyze them more carefully and ponder over them better. It appears that Islam2009 has been doing a good job so far. If he doesn't want to have a public debate, that's his preference and indicates no running away on his part.

In a public ‘moderated’ debate, David and I would have only a short fixed time to say what we want to, with only the research we take into the debate.

Here we have the chance to say as much as we want, having researched it for as long as we want before we say it.

Which is the better method for ascertaining the truth?

Secondly, this debate IS moderated by David himself, as he is host master, so that argument doesn’t work either.

The obvious reason is that Evangelicals have turned debating into a points-scoring circus to see who can “catch out” the other the most, with little regard to the actual substance and depth of the arguments.

A slick, eloquent sales man in sharp suit could sell a bad car better that a bad, stuttering sales man in jeans could sell a good one.

My opinion is that this is all that most evangelical debaters are. Brilliant sales people, with bad products.

I once saw a conversation between a Muslim and Christian where the young, loud-mouthed Muslim was destroying the softly spoken Christian over “the Gospel of Barnabus was rejected at Nicea”.

Is that fair?

I didn’t think so, which is why I stepped in and explained that I side with the Christian on that issue.

David asked me questions about the Quran, and I answered, he has no reply after many days.

I have asked him simple questions about the Bible, and he changes the subject on a new thread and has no reply after many days.

My question is, why?

If anyone here can tell me what advantages a verbal, stop-watched timed, debate has over the one we are having now, WITH REGARD TO ACERTAINING THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, then maybe ill consider it.

<< The palimpsest clearly reveals that variant Qur'an existed in the early era of Islam. >>

Which the hadith already tell us, and the prophet already endorsed, so we would have still belived that regarless of whether the palempset existed or not.

<<< My question is, the variants on this palimset are they dialectical variants revealing only a different Arabic dialect versus the quarashi dialect of Uthman's manuscript.

Or does the palimset reveal variants that are not different from Uthman's version by dialects but simply different wordings in the same dialect? >>

There is a bit of confusion here regarding what a different dialects entail.

The different dialects involved paraphrases, ommions, additions and synonyms for the same word- all of which represent the same Quran given to Mohammed (i.e the 7 dialects)

In general, Uthaman standardised the wording of the Quran so that the dialect (i.e. wording) of Qurash- would be preserved in every verse.

May I make a suggestion Hogan?

If you are really are in search of truth (and you seem like a pretty honest guy to me), then ask an Arabic friend of yours to translate the variant in the Fogg palimpsest for you that Nabeel posted, and then compare it the variant with the Uthmanic Quran today.

That will give you a real life example what the different dialects are.

It will also reveal the apparent dishonestly of why Nabeel didn’t translate it for you, as it nature in itself completely blows an sinister uthmanic ‘cover-up’ out of the water.

A good friend of mine writing on your blog brought to my attention the ^^translation^^ of Kitab Al-Masahif by Mr Arthur Jeffery which you have been reading online and possibly have a copy of it in your good library. Not only that, you have apparently expressed your surprise as follows:

"How is it possible that neither of our Muslim friends are familiar with the fact that Arthur Jeffery translated the entire text of the Kitab al-Masahif all the way back in 1933, and that the entire text is available online in English translation (not to mention in any good library?” (http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/01/seven-ahruf-quranic-escape-clause.html)

You express this in such a confidence. The following therefore can be deduced:

Your own personal reading and research on this book has been very shallow, superficial and thereby have understandably misled yourself. Armed with such a superficial reading or misreading of an important book like this one in the subject of Koranic Mss etc., you are in a very weak position to argue with Moslems (or Christians) on the subject of the Koran.

And this deduction is based on a simple fact: Mr Jeffery did not translate Kitab Al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud but rather edited it from the manuscript and included it in his well known work ‘Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices’, in 1937, in its original Arabic language, UNTRANSLATED.

Sorry if I have written in the wrong sections of your blog, I was warned that you may not notice this in the right section of your blog. Once you and your respected readers have noticed this you may delete my humble comments from the wrong sections and just leave a copy in its relevant section.Thanks and Regards

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!